John T. Nordberg's theory...

[The God]

The God:


That's right.

You can't pick up a lump of momentum and carry it around with you. Nor can you pick up a lump of charge. You can pick up things that have momentum or charge, but those things don't exist as substances in and of themselves. And energy is the same. You can't pick up a lump of energy. Energy isn't a substance. Neither is momentum or charge.

Ok, you stand in front of a high speed bullet or touch a highly charged capacitor with other hand on earth. Then may be you will understand that momentum or charge is not accounting system.

Did anyone tell you that they are substance? I think I told you that they are not accounting system.

 

[Farsight]

You're conflating two separate ideas about waves here, namely: (1) the notion that whatever it is that is "waving" can exert a force on other objects, and (2) the fact that we can associate energy transport with a wave.

Yes, that's right.

If you're swimming in the ocean and a water wave "picks you up", it is not energy that is picking you up - it's water molecules exerting forces on you.

And those water molecules are made out of electrons plus other particles. And those electrons were made out of photons, which have an E=hf wave nature, in pair production. And when you take all the energy out of a wave, it isn't there any more. Remember what I say about putting the photon through a repeated Compton scatter? And about pair production? Those electrons are quite literally made out of kinetic energy. And so are the water molecules. Only if they weren't waving because of the extra macroscopic wave energy, you wouldn't be picked up.

You continue to confuse substance with energy

I'm not confused, I'm with Einstein on this.

and are, apparently, unteachable.

I'm teaching you here. Pay attention.

Either you're being careless in how you use the term "wave", or you're being deliberately obfuscatory here.

I'm not. This is what happens when you remove all the energy from the E=hf photon. It isn't there any more. There are no zero-energy waves.

True, when there is no "wave energy" in a body of water, then there are no waves. But taking away wave energy does not destroy the body of water.

Don't forget the wave nature of matter. Annihilation removes the wave energy from the electron, and the positron.

As I said previously, your telling me that I am contradicting Einstein does not mean that I am. And that comes long before we even getting to discussing whether Einstein was or was not an infallible guru of physics.

But he was right about E=mc². Or are you saying Einstein was wrong?

If you did, you would have demonstrated it by now.

I have. I'm the one giving the references.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm teaching you here. Pay attention.

Nice to have such expertise around, thanks Tom....or is it Harry?.....or maybe Dick?

 

[origin]

Yes, that's right.

And those water molecules are made out of electrons plus other particles. And those electrons were made out of photons, which have an E=hf wave nature, in pair production. And when you take all the energy out of a wave, it isn't there any more. Remember what I say about putting the photon through a repeated Compton scatter? And about pair production? Those electrons are quite literally made out of kinetic energy. And so are the water molecules. Only if they weren't waving because of the extra macroscopic wave energy, you wouldn't be picked up.

I'm not confused, I'm with Einstein on this.

I'm teaching you here. Pay attention.

I'm not. This is what happens when you remove all the energy from the E=hf photon. It isn't there any more. There are no zero-energy waves.

Don't forget the wave nature of matter. Annihilation removes the wave energy from the electron, and the positron.

But he was right about E=mc². Or are you saying Einstein was wrong?

I have. I'm the one giving the references.

Reported as pseudoscience in the science section.

 

[James R]

Ok, you stand in front of a high speed bullet or touch a highly charged capacitor with other hand on earth. Then may be you will understand that momentum or charge is not accounting system.

Did anyone tell you that they are substance? I think I told you that they are not accounting system.

You're still not getting it. A bullet is not momentum. And a flow of electrons from a capacitor is not charge.

 

[James R]

Farsight:

The best thing about beating your head against a brick wall is stopping.

There's no need for me to address the same points you made earlier just because you think repetition makes your argument stronger. My objections stand.

 

[PhysBang]

Reported as pseudoscience in the science section.

That will do two things: jack and shit.

 

[The God]

You're still not getting it. A bullet is not momentum. And a flow of electrons from a capacitor is not charge.

James R, the original issue was your assertion that the energy is accounting system. I still hold that it is loose generalization by you.

You are talking about energy conservation from one form to another like KE to PE to thermal etc, and keeping the substance (mass I presume) in different bracket, this is where you are off the mark. Substance is nothing but mostly energy only. I am not making an assertion that you can convert mass into energy or vice versa, but think what is 1 kg substance....what it is made of?

 

[Confused2]

...but think what is 1 kg substance....what it is made of?

Some answers here:-

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parcon.html

 

[Write4U]

James R, the original issue was your assertion that the energy is accounting system. I still hold that it is loose generalization by you.

Odd that it tends confirms an abstract mathematical function, which James vehemently rejects.

You are talking about energy conservation from one form to another like KE to PE to thermal etc, and keeping the substance (mass I presume) in different bracket, this is where you are off the mark. Substance is nothing but mostly energy only. I am not making an assertion that you can convert mass into energy or vice versa, but think what is 1 kg substance....what it is made of?

That depends. A cubic centimeter of pure clay will coat an entire tennis court.
One can make a sheet of graphene 1 atom thick. Below is a sheet of grapheme:


Obviously a mathematical construct.
From Wiki:

Graphene (/ˈɡræf.iːn/) is an allotrope of carbon in the form of a two-dimensional, atomic-scale, honey-comb lattice in which one atom forms each vertex.

Matter is made of elements in sets of specific configurations. The matter of water is made from the bonding of 2 hydrogen atoms (an atom with a specific atomic value) to a single oxygen atom (with a different atomic value), creating a mathematical construct of a water molecule, with a combined weight of the 3 atoms, the mass of the water molecule.
Of course, the atoms themselves are mathematical constructs of particles, each with a specific value or mass.

If James did indeed mention an form of "accounting system" (or function), I am in agreement.

 

[James R]

James R, the original issue was your assertion that the energy is accounting system. I still hold that it is loose generalization by you.

I know you do.

You are talking about energy conservation from one form to another like KE to PE to thermal etc, and keeping the substance (mass I presume) in different bracket, this is where you are off the mark. Substance is nothing but mostly energy only.

Since I have now explained my point to you more than once, I don't see that there's any good reason why I should explain it a third time.

Why don't you and Farsight discuss it amongst yourselves and see what you can come up with together? My previous posts are available for you to re-read and think about.

I am not making an assertion that you can convert mass into energy or vice versa, but think what is 1 kg substance....what it is made of?

In my experience, 1 kg of substance is usually made of atoms, or some other kind of matter.

 

[Write4U]

Supersolids produced in exotic state of quantum matter

A mind-bogglingly strange state of matter may have finally made its appearance. Two teams of scientists report the creation of supersolids, which are both liquid and solid at the same time. Supersolids have a crystalline structure like a solid, but can simultaneously flow like a superfluid, a liquid that flows without friction.
Research teams from MIT and ETH Zurich both produced supersolids in an exotic form of matter known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. Reports of the work were published online at arXiv.org on October 26 (by the MIT group) and September 28 (by the Zurich group).

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...il&utm_term=0_a4c415a67f-091fde9dd9-104691249

 

[PhysBang]

Odd that it tends confirms an abstract mathematical function, which James vehemently rejects.

That depends. A cubic centimeter of pure clay will coat an entire tennis court.
One can make a sheet of graphene 1 atom thick. Below is a sheet of grapheme:

No. Not a fucking sheet of graphene. A fucking artist's rendering of graphene.

Do you see the problem with your argument?

 

[The God]

No. Not a fucking sheet of graphene. A fucking artist's rendering of graphene.

Do you see the problem with your argument?

I am sorry Kittamaru, this man did claim that he was a PhD. Old saying goes that education makes you humble and civil. He missed his lessons. What a terrible loss, it saddens me whenever I see a man going towards self destruction.

 

[The God]

In my experience, 1 kg of substance is usually made of atoms, or some other kind of matter.

And 'atoms' are made of?

 

[pluto2]

I am sorry Kittamaru, this man did claim that he was a PhD. Old saying goes that education makes you humble and civil. He missed his lessons. What a terrible loss, it saddens me whenever I see a man going towards self destruction.

I tend to agree with you.

It's people who can't think outside the box who are the problem. Conformity to the state is bad for science.

Humanity and science are going down the toilet because people are never willing to question the mainstream ideas.

Corporate culture in universities and extreme conformity of the people to old mainstream ideas are not good for the progression of science and humanity.

 

[Farsight]

In my experience, 1 kg of substance is usually made of atoms, or some other kind of matter.

Yes, your atoms might be the monatomic atoms of a gas in a box. Only when you make those atoms move faster, the box weighs more than 1kg. Moreover you could replace those atoms with photons. Photons are massless, but when you catch a photon in a mirror-box it increases the mass of that system. And when you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. Like Einstein said.

 

[Confused2]

Photons are massless, but when you catch a photon in a mirror-box it increases the mass of that system.

I'm not sure this is correct in the way that you clearly intend to suggest. I think the effective mass increase comes from the way any acceleration of the box changes the momentum of the photons within resulting in a 'back pressure' which is indistinguishable from (but not the same as) 'mass'. The only link I had to this mechanism has been lost.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes, your atoms might be the monatomic atoms of a gas in a box. Only when you make those atoms move faster, the box weighs more than 1kg. Moreover you could replace those atoms with photons. Photons are massless, but when you catch a photon in a mirror-box it increases the mass of that system. And when you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. Like Einstein said.

How long would it take for your photon to be absorbed by your box?

 

[Confused2]

Time out for Einstein's Equation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html
Unless we can figger out what's going on here we don't have a leg to stand on.